Oh stop being a goose Abel! The whole point is whatever he said was innapropriate for a public board and breached net ettiquette! So sure, be a sticky beak - but don't get the same stuff posted publicly that got him temp banned in the first place!

Considering that he called me "vindictive and immoral" (flaming) and THAT didn't get him banned, what he said to cause the ban musta been pretty bad.

I've been called a few names here, and basically told to go hug my dolly in the provincial corner a few times. I'm assuming what Sam said must have been above and beyond simple dismissive insults and sarcasm, but I don't feel a burning need to read it. I'm curious, sure, but I don't feel it's my God-given right or anything.

I moderate a BB elsewhere, and disciplinary stuff is never really discussed as a matter of public record. In the end, any bannings, edits, or locks are at the discretion of the moderator/admin - once you open the floor for a posting democracy, the shit really hits the fan. Mods/admin should, imo, listen to what the posters are saying, but they shouldn't be ultimately answerable to them - i.e. they shouldn't have to produce the post that caused a banning so everyone can bicker over whether it was worth it. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it's Mike's board and Daffy is his mod.

I knew exactly what I was doing when I posted my reply. The whole point was that people are making the same allegations on the same level as Sam but nothings being done to them. Point taken anyway, and as far as I know he's cooled off. Oh, and yes I do know what got him sin-binned, I do go to school with him. Justice why don't you explain?

I cannot speak for others but the things I posted to Sam before I ceased to reply to anything he said were in response to his over tone and what he had already said to other members.

Since we are long-standing members and he certainly appeared to be joining our board with nothing but criticism and attack, it is he who will be labeled a troll or banned for such posting, not us for our response to that.

He certainly did a good job convincing me that while some aspects of St. J have changed, the SES has not, and having been brought up in the School and going to the school has brought out in him all of the reasons I left.

Again in defence of Sam, I think you'll find that in fact his first post was completely reasonble and responsible (except for the 'Misrepresentation bit) perhaps he got a bit over-zealous as the statement went on. But he did react when people started slating him for his poor spelling and grammer (yes he is dyslexic). Do not try to act wholly innocent, if other people had posted level headed valid replies rather combing his post for mistakes, then perhaps this confrontation could have been avoided?

Please do not think that "since" you are not' long standing' or "senior" member you somehow have less rights as 'newcomers'

Let me apologize on behalf of those who do not subscribe to this arrogant and indeed very SES ish assertion by FT that has no basis in fact or would be upheld by very many (maybe only one or two of her chat buddies )

FT has been guilty of' only attack and criticism' herself without taking the opportunity when offered to put some substance to her put downs.

Anyone who abuses the spirit of the forum ,whether resorting to vulgar and offensive language or , equally damaging, just using the board to post self serving verbiage of the idle 'bored housewife' type chit chat with little or no relevance or value to the topics being discussed but forcing anyone scanning the forum to wade through the most self indulgent tripe .

This forum is not and should not be turned into an alternative to some other distraction like daytime TV -- if you want to have a little tete a tete then please have some consideration and use the PM facility.

The behaviour of FT on the "no sexual abuse in ses/SOP?" thread that I started to give a specific place for females (young or old) to be able to contact and reinforce each other in effect (not that boys cannot or nor have been sexually abused either ) has been truly deplorable and without the'put down' excuse of immaturity.

By scoffing at the very idea of women committing sexual and other abuses FT and ADG undermine the very credibility of ,most likely, then young women or girls who had in fact suffered abuse from their fellow females. (it being presumed that in the girl's school only female teachers were employed or at least for any sensitive activities)

We have had numerous examples of absolutely horrendous sexually abusive behaviour carried out by females , in this case against males, in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Irag -- the perpetrators were both female and male and the commander of the prison was also female.

Nothing is more repulsive,disgusting,uncivilized or likely to result in further bloodshed from justified hatred of the perpetrators -- but inflicted on their, not implicated, brothers in arms -- again this example shows the effect of putting on a uniform and having been (deliberately) indoctrinated with ideas to desensitize the basic human feelings of empathy and conscience.

The example I gave of a female concentration camp comandant in "Seven Beauties" was based on a true case .

I do hope young victims of abuse are not intimidated by the derision and attempted discreditting in that example and I hope you blokes are not "put in your place" by the implied superiority and self important tone of FTs admonition.

Age alone does not confer wisdom or right -- keep on contributing but do temper your words with a consideration for what others are going to infer from your verbal conduct -- if you mean to convince somebody then do it with logical argument and civil discourse . I understand your dilemma if you have no experience of any type of abuse or bad teaching practice yourself -- how can you otherwise defend what you see as unfounded accusation ? -- I think you must at least consider the truth of what Townend found and accept that as (minimum probably) fact.

As to the constant 'nit picking' about relatively unimportant spelling errors and pedantic posts by ADG in particular on this -- try to forgive her lack of consideration -- I have worked with a dyslexic modelmaker whose work was amongst the best ( I read drawings for him but he had a better three dimensional appreciation than any of us ) -- famous aircraft designer,engineer etc Paul Mac Cready -- the first man to build a successful man powered aircraft and voted 'engineer of the century' by readers of 'machine design' mag ,recipient of many international awards, etc is also dyslexic. A number of famous acheivers have been.

Your school was set up for the very best of reasons -- namely to bring the best of intellectual and philosophical thinking to bear upon the task of educating the young to be able to improve the world of the future -- that aim could hardly be argued with (and conventional teaching is also derived from the Greek academy concept and precepts ) but I feel that the original intention may well have been lost sight of or perverted and the students are the worse for it . If it came to a choice I would rather a little over zealous application of academic theory rather than the opposite that produces empty headed but 'cool' young 'boofhead' sporting only type student boys with no interest in the intellectual side of life or women who grow up to be 'bored housewives' gossipping about nothing of import.

Unfortunately in Australia we have tended to de emphasize intellectual acheivement in favour of popular culture -- the Dame Edna Everage figure is a sarcastic caricature of that 'suburban housewife' of narrow mind and little idea of the existence of a world of cerebral things -- you get the worst portrayal of Australian 'culture' again via the vaporous popular shows like Neighbours and now I believe "Kath and Kim " -- it is almost neccesary to hide any interest in higher intellectual pursuits in this country to not get suspicious scrutiny (remember the "Bruce" sketch in monty python..... )

The school of philosophy seemed like a refreshing contrast to this stullifying national characteristic and that I ,at least, found it to be so misrepresented and actually harmful to those who are seeking such an environment might explain why I feel the need to take action .

Don't be intimidated because you are young or treated with disdain by anyone claiming to represent "us" -- she certainly doesn't speak for me and I believe you guys can do better in explaining and perhaps justifying your educational establishment. You have proof anyway that not only juveniles can exhibit juvenile behaviour (it is, or should be, forgivable in the young -- on the other hand 'there is no fool like an old fool ')

My report card one liner would be "has lots of potential but must try harder'

Not a good way to start out, I think. I do recognize that the posts calmed way down, which was very helpful. Just to clarify, my comments about long-standing members have nothign to do with who is more "right" or who is better. It has to do with internet community etiquette (which teenagers often have not learned yet, although some have) which is that when you join a community as a new member, you take some time to read the posts, get a feel for the tone of the board, figure out whether it's serious, or joking, or a combination of both, and then introduce yourself. When a newcomer beings by being combative and insulting to many members who are already part of the community, that person is being a troll. Joining a board just to argue is also trolling. Joining to engage in meaningful debate and conversation without name-calling and slurs, as some current St J's pupils have done, is welcome.

St James boys and others, I have just notified that I will be withdrawing from any further posting or replying to attacks or misrepresentations on this thread . Before leaving I would simply say a couple of things and stand by my earlier and other postings -- sometimes boys, you will be slapped in the face or hit below the belt by a member of the fairer sex -- you will be a better man to just turn the cheek and walk away no matter how much provocation is given you . I'ts part of being a man . Some things like this will never be or should be "equal" .

Incidentally I don't think you guys need too much lecturing in the use of computers to communicate -- sometimes you have to also turn the cheek to a verbal slap in the face and resist the temptation to strike back -- again don't let yourself be provoked and you will do just fine.

ross nolan wrote:-- sometimes boys, you will be slapped in the face or hit below the belt by a member of the fairer sex -- you will be a better man to just turn the cheek and walk away no matter how much provocation is given you . I'ts part of being a man . Some things like this will never be or should be "equal" .

he still doesn't 'geddit"

*sigh*

ooops! sorry. I was back to ignoring him wasn't I? Silly me *gush/blush*

Not withstanding some sulky behaviour on all sides it does seem to me that to answer the question posed in the thread title that this has been a most excellent example of free speech and democracy.

The point that Bella made in respect to the ultimately non-democratic role of the moderators I agree with. Even in a democracy you have to have an ultimate authority, and the success of the democracy is based partly on the moderation of the moderators in doing their job.

The fact that they let the posts run through the hot-headed phase enabled a most edifying example of natural self moderation by all. If one post appeared which the moderators considered warranted a temporary ban, I am confident that it must have been extraordinary given their previous moderate policy.

Jerome, if you know what was written and feel that it was harsh and one-sided it might be more appropriate to take it up with the moderators themselves by PM. But it would also be useful to accept that on this forum they are the authority, like it or not. Everyone else has to.